www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No.

8; August 2010

A New Technique for Location of Fault Location on Transmission

Lines
Khalaf Y. Alzyoud
Al- Balqa' Applied University - Jordan
Amman, P.O.Box (15008), marka ashamalia
E-mail: yasin_mualla@yahoo.com

Al-Mofleh Anwar (Corresponding author)

School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang
E-mail: anwaralmofleh@yahoo.com

Faisal Y. Alzyoud
School of Computer Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang
E-mail: zoiod_jo@yahoo.com
Abstract
Magnetic field sensors can be used to detect fault detection and location effectively. Quick fault detection can
help protect equipment by allowing the disconnection of faulted lines before any significant damage is done. A
variety of algorithms continue to be developed to perform this task more accurately and more effectively.
Particularly fault impedance (based algorithms) require both current and voltage information. However, it is
possible to monitor a transmission system without using current or voltage transformers through the analysis of
the magnetic field near the conductors. Since each conductor in a transmission line creates a magnetic field due
to the current pass through it. Magnetic field sensors are used and tested using MATLAB through analyzing
wave fault detection and location as there is a possibility of analyzing the transmission line system based on the
resultant magnetic field produced. The results show that the magnetic field sensors are a viable tool for power
transmission line fault detection, so this method is highly recommended to be used based on its efficient and
accuracy.
Keywords: Transmission line, Fault detection, Fault location, Travelling waves, Current transformers
1. Introduction
Transmission line is one of the main components in every electric power system. The transmission line is
exposed to the environment and the possibility of experiencing faults on the transmission lines ( Bouthiba, 2004)
( Salama, 1999). Line faults are the most common faults, they may be triggered by lightning strokes, trees may
fall across lines, fog and salt spray on dirty insulators may cause the insulator strings to flash over, and ice and
snow loadings may cause insulator strings to fail mechanically (Tziouvaras et al., 2001) ( PES, 2004). When a
fault occurs on an electrical transmission line, it is very important to detect it and to find its location in order to
make necessary repairs and to restore power as soon as possible (Firouzjah and Sheikholeslami ,2009). As the
time needed to determine the fault point along the line will reflect the quality of the power delivery. Therefore,
an accurate fault location on the line is an important requirement for a permanent fault. Pointing to a weak spot,
it is also helpful for a transient fault, which may result from a marginally contaminated insulator, or a swaying or
growing tree under the line (Zimmerman and Costello, 2005). Due to the simple relationship between current
and magnetic field intensity, it is understandable that magnetic field sensors have previously been used in fault
detection and location schemes. These schemes often use magnetic field sensors in place of current transformers
since magnetic field sensors can be installed independently from a substation or switching station with a
minimum amount of additional equipment ( Sneddonand and Gale, 1997)(Aurangzeb et al., 2000). One possible
use of this relationship is simply replacing each current transformer with a Hall Effect transducer. This
transducer would typically need to be within the electrical arcing distance of the conductors to produce enough
voltage for analysis and would thus require insulation (Khorashadi-Zadeh and Sanaye-Pasand, 2006). To remove
this need for insulation, the transducer can be located between two tapered pieces of ferromagnetic material in
order to concentrate the magnetic field into the transducer; as a result, the transducer does not need to be located
within the arcing distance of the conductors. The measured magnetic field result can then be used similarly as a

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 63

www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 8; August 2010

current measurement for fault detection and location (Elhaffar and Lehtonen, 2004) (Vintan, 2004). Since a
magnetic field sensor does not need to make contact with the conductors and can be installed remotely from
substations, the effectiveness of the magnetic field sensor in fault detection and location algorithms is clearly
worth examining (Jiang et al., 2000).
2. Conductor Configurations and the Magnetic Field
The magnetic field which is detected by the current sensors will be changed based on the configuration of the
conductors. Since the magnetic field-based fault detector should be able to be used in a variety of situations, it is
essential to gain an understanding of its performance for several conductor configurations (PSRC, 1999). The
magnetic fields of five different conductor configurations are demonstrated below in Figures. Each Figure shows
the conductor configuration, the magnetic field during balanced operation, the magnetic field during a single line
to ground fault on phase a, and the magnetic field during a line to line fault on phases a and b. The currents in
the un faulted conductors are assumed to have an RMS value of 100A; the fault currents are assumed 1000A
RMS. The value of (P) was set as 2 meters, and the conductors are assumed to correspond to phases (a, b, and c)
from left to right. Figure 1 shows a horizontal conductor configuration and its magnetic fields. The sensors are
located a distance p below phase b where p is the distance between phases (a and c). As expected, the vertical
component of the magnetic field during normal operation is greater than the horizontal component. The vertical
maximums occur when the current in phase b is crossing zero and as a result, the other phases cancel each others’
horizontal components but add them in the same direction vertically. Likewise, the horizontal maximums occur
when the current in phase (b) is a maximum; however, at this time the horizontal components of the magnetic
fields due to phases (a) and (c) add in the opposite direction and cancel some of the horizontal magnetic field
due to phase (b), while the vertical components due to phases (a) and (c) cancel each other. The magnetic field of
the single line to ground fault on phase (a) as expected. The magnetic field contributions due to phases (b) and (c)
become relatively insignificant, so the magnetic field is essentially only the field due to phase (a). The angle of
rotation is also mostly determined by the angle between the phase a conductor and the sensors from a vertical
reference. Neglecting the effects of the other phases, the angle of rotation would be:
⎛ p/2⎞ (1)
tan −1 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = tan −1 (0.5) ≈ 26.6o
⎝ p ⎠
Which is fairly close to the observed angle of rotation, the difference is due to the fact that the calculated angle
does not account for the currents in phase's (b) and (c). The line to line fault on phases (a) and (b) creates a
magnetic field which is somewhat unexpected, particularly with respect to the angle of rotation. Since the
magnitudes of the currents in phases a and b are identical in this situation and they are approximately 180° out of
phase due to the line to line fault, the positive maximum horizontal field due to phase a occurs when the current
is at its positive maximum, so it is counteracted by a field inclined at the same angle as noted above. As a result,
this maximum magnetic field has a positive horizontal component and a negative vertical component. The same
result in the opposite direction occurs when the current in phase a is at its negative maximum and phase b is at
its positive maximum. It is clear from these plots that, at least for a significant fault current, a line to ground or
line to line fault could be detected using magnetic sensors for this conductor configuration. The conductor
configuration shown in Figure 2 is a delta configuration. The magnetic fields here are similar to those of the
horizontal conductor configuration under normal operating conditions and for the single line to ground fault on
phase a. However, the line to line fault on phases (a and b) has a very different angle of rotation. The reason for
this is that the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the conductor; the
contribution from phase b is significantly reduced compared to its contribution for the case of the horizontal
conductor configuration. As a result the analysis above regarding the horizontal configuration remains true; the
magnitude of the maximum magnetic field due to phase b is reduced. Thus, the magnetic field is more
significantly affected by the current in phase (a), so the maximum positive horizontal component due to phase b
is less than the negative horizontal component due to phase (a) concurrently. This in turn causes the significant
change in the angle of rotation of the ellipse.
3. Location and Basic Design of the Sensors
By performing this analysis in polar coordinates rather than Cartesian coordinates, the fault detection is based on
two variables (rho and theta), but in essence only one of these is used per algorithm. This makes fault detection
more intuitive, since only one time-dependent variable needs to be analyzed for each algorithm rather than the
three (or more) variables in a typical fault detection and location scheme. The values of rho and theta are given
by equation 2, 3.

64 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852

www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 8; August 2010

ρ = H X2 + H Y2 (2)
HY
θ = tan −1 ( ) (3)
HX
Where the result of the inverse tangent has been corrected if (HX) is negative
Assuming a triangular or horizontally coplanar arrangement of conductors, the sensors should ideally be located
fairly close to the transmission lines vertically to reduce the effects of magnetic interference, since magnetic
interference can affect the accuracy of fault detection and in extreme cases to indicate faults where they do not
occur. Also, keeping the sensors fairly close to the transmission lines helps in keeping the shape of the magnetic
field intensity close to a circle as possible. The shape of the magnetic field intensity ellipse can also cause
problems in detection since long, narrow ellipses increase the likelihood of incorrect fault detection. While the
magnetic field ellipse could be kept close to a circle in shape in the processing algorithm, it is much more
difficult to reduce or eliminate magnetic interference. It should be noted that the close proximity to the
conductors improves the performance of the analysis as stated above; the sensors must be kept outside the arcing
distance of any of the conductors. Additionally, the sensors should be horizontally located directly under the
center phase (if possible) to create an elliptical rotating magnetic field that is close to a circle as possible and it
has an angle of rotation that is very close to 0° or 90°, this is to reduce incorrect fault detection. The location of
the sensors relative to the conductors and the resulting magnetic field are shown below in Figure 3. As the
sensors are shifted horizontally, the angle of rotation of the elliptical rotating magnetic field begins to increase in
the direction shown; because when the horizontal magnetic field due to phase c is at its positive maximum, the
currents in phases a and b contribute to the magnetic field negatively, both in the horizontal and vertical
directions. This negative contribution in the horizontal direction is not enough to overcome the contribution due
to the current in phase c, so this maximum value of the magnetic field is in the fourth quadrant similarly to the
current in phase c when it is at its negative maximum. A representative sensor location and the resulting
magnetic field are shown in Figure 4. As the sensors are shifted further, the angle of rotation of the magnetic
field continues to increase and the magnitudes of the maximums also begin to decrease; the minimums also
decrease rapidly. This simplicity is due to the increase of distance from all of the conductors. An example sensor
position and the magnetic field are shown in Figure 5. As the sensors are shifted even further, the angle of
rotation of the elliptical rotates magnetic field increases beyond 180° simultaneously, so the maximum value of
the magnetic field decreases even more. This rotation is due to the increased percentage of the magnetic field
resulting from phase c as well as the fact that the angles that all three phases make with the sensors from vertical
are becoming closer in their value. A sensor location which demonstrates this and the corresponding magnetic
field are shown in Figure 6. In addition to being located under the center of the transmission line and as close
to the conductors as possible, the magnetic field sensors should also be located away from magnetic materials or
materials that can be magnetized, since these will affect the magnetic field perceived by the sensors. This means
that the sensors needs to be mounted on non-magnetic poles; this is of special note in the case that the pylons
used in the transmission system in question are made of material that can be magnetized such as steel. The
suggested designs for the magnetic field sensors are two search coils, one oriented such that its induced voltage
is proportional to the vertical magnetic field and one such that its induced voltage is proportional to the
horizontal magnetic field. The voltages induced in the coils are
δH X
V X = μ O NA = KωH X cos(ωt + θ X ) (4)
δt
∂H y
v y = μ o NA = kωH y cos(ωt + θ y ) (5)
∂t
Where the coil constant is
K = μ o NA (6)
And
μ o = 4π × 10 −7 H / m
4. Fault Location Analysis
For the analyzed system, the length of the transmission line and the velocity of propagation are assumed to be
known. This analysis is performed based on two sets of sensors located at opposite ends of the transmission line
as shown in Figure 7. Although the velocity of propagation in the transmission line can be described using the

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 65

www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 8; August 2010

Telegrapher Equations.
1
u= (7)
LC
For a lossless transmission line, where u is the velocity of propagation and L and C are the inductance and
capacitance of the transmission line per unit length, respectively, this method of determining the velocity is
somewhat cumbersome in this situation; since L and C are difficult to be measured for a multi-conductor
transmission line. Since the velocity of propagation in a un faulted transmission line, so it can be described as
1
u = (8)
t trans
Where t trans is the time for an impulse at one end of the transmission line to reach the other end, the velocity of
propagation u can be measured without knowing directly the line capacitances and inductances. It is also known
that u can be estimated to be close to the speed of light in power transmission and distribution lines; however, an
accurate value of the propagation velocity is essential in accurate traveling wave-based fault location. Once u is
known, the distance from each sensor and the actual time at which a fault occurs can be found using the
equations below
d1 − d 2 = u (t1 − t 2 ) (9)
And
d1 + d 2 = l (10)
Where t1 and t2 are the times at which faults were detected by each sensor in seconds, d1 and d2 are the distances
from the fault to each sensor in kilometers, l is the length of the transmission line in kilometers, and u is the
velocity of propagation in kilometers per second. These result in the following equations:
1
d1 = [l + u (t1 − t 2 )]
2
1
d 2 = [l + u (t 2 − t1 )] = l − d1
2
d d
t fault =t 1− 1 = t 2 − 2 (11)
u u
Where (t fault ) is the estimated time at which the fault actually occurred. The actual fault time (t fault ) is close to
the times at which the fault is detected because u is typically very close to the speed of light. Since the fault
detection will be performed by a microprocessor, the analog to digital conversion sampling rate is an important
consideration in the accuracy of fault detection. The sampling rate is directly related to the maximum accuracy of
the algorithm, since it determines the minimum measurable difference in fault detection times. As a result, the
sampling rate must be fairly high to obtain dependable accuracy. The difference in calculated fault location when
a calculated fault time changes by a single time step which is given by
1 1 1
Δ step = ( d1 + Δ step ) − d1 = (l + u ((t1 + ) − t 2 )) − (l + u ((t1) − t 2 )) (12)
2 SR 2
Where Δ step is the step size, or minimum detectable change in meters, and SR is the sampling rate in samples
u
per second. This can be solved to find that Δ step =
2( SR)
The factor of 2 is presented since a difference of one sample at one end of the transmission line only makes half
the impact of one sample at each end in opposite directions. The value of Δ step is used in determining the
maximum accuracy available for any given transmission line and it is important for shorter transmission lines
where the error per length of the transmission line can be significantly affected.
4.1 Analysis Using the Magnetic Field
As previously stated, the most obvious coordinate system to analyze a rotating magnetic field is a polar
coordinate system, since any changes in the expected total magnetic field will be detected easily in this way.
Four algorithms are presented in this section for the detection of faults while examining the system in polar

66 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852

www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 8; August 2010

coordinates. All of them involve detecting if the values of rho or theta have exceeded, or gone below a set of
expected boundaries, or have made a significant and unexpected change.
Since each of these algorithms has a possibility of incorrectly detecting a fault, the results of these algorithms
can be analyzed collectively to better determine whether or not a fault has truly occurred. Also, by taking the
earliest fault detection times from each algorithm, the microprocessor which is performing this analysis will be
able to determine actual fault detection times more correctly in order to perform the fault location more
accurately. As a result, this combined analysis using all of these algorithms will provide a reduced number of
“false alarms” as well as more accurate fault location.
4.2 Analysis Algorithms
The algorithms used in this analysis detect the steady-state magnetic field behavior and the determination of any
deviation from it. The first algorithm estimates the ellipse formed by the magnetic field then detects any
significant deviations from this locus. The next algorithm compares the present value of rho to the value detected
a fraction of a cycle before it and determines if too significant of a change has taken place.
4.3 The “Expected Ellipse” Algorithm
Since the magnetic field will typically form an ellipse in steady state, the simplest way for a microprocessor is to
determine if there is a fault to sense if the magnetic field intensities significantly change from the elliptical
pattern. There are several ways to perform such an analysis. One way is to approximate the shape of the ellipse
and determine. Once constant ellipse has been found, the instantaneous magnetic field value will deviate from
that ellipse. Such a deviation from a constant ellipse is shown below in Figure 8 in order to analyze this rotating
field in this way, which will be referred to as the “expected ellipse” algorithm, the following steps are performed:
1) The average maximum and minimum magnetic field intensities and any angle of rotation of the field are
determined.
2) An ellipse approximating the rotating magnetic field is generated from this information.
3) Ellipses for the minimum and maximum allowable values of the magnetic field intensity based on allowable
percentage deviation from the average must be created from the approximation; these are used to detect any sort
of abnormal behavior.
Similar to the Cartesian coordinate ellipse discussed before, the polar coordinate ellipse which can be generated
from the information about the maximum rho, minimum rho, and shifted angle is defined by
ρ max ρ min
ρ= (13)
ρ max
2
sin 2 (θ − θ shift ) + ρ min
2
cos 2 (θ − θ shift )
Where ρ is the predicted value of rho for any given value of θ (based on the value of θ for any data point), ρ max
and ρ min indicate maximum and minimum values of rho, while θ shift reflect the rotational shift of the ellipse.
Once this ellipse is constructed, it is used in determining allowable maximum and minimum magnetic fields. An
example of elliptical rotating magnetic field with several boundaries of allowable values of rho for given values
of theta is shown below in Figure 9; the actual magnetic field is shown in bold. While values of ρ max and ρ min
are indicated, it should be noted that values of ρ max and ρ min occur at the points 180° around the ellipse from
the indicated points. The boundary which is significantly larger than the actual ellipse (the “maximum boundary”)
is used for determining if a fault definitely occurred in contrast to the possibility of a fault occurring. This
method of analysis is effective in determining the maximum and minimum values of rho which can be
determined accurately. However, if the steady-state currents are distorted, both the maximums and minimums
and the angles at which they are detected could be affected. This effect can be reduced by adding an analog or
digital filter to the detection device, but there is still a chance of the detection of maximums and minimums
being slightly incorrect. Even if these values are close to real, there is a chance of either a “false alarm” or a fault
not being detected with this algorithm alone. In order to decrease the number of these false positives, a different
algorithm can be used in conjunction with the “expected ellipse” algorithm.
4.4 The “Previous Value” Algorithm
Since the values of rho in the polar coordinate system do not change significantly over a very short time step for
a transmission line that is relatively well balanced, each value of rho can be compared against a value that
occurred shortly before it to detect sudden changes. In a sense, this effectively compares the magnetic field

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 67

www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 8; August 2010

against rotated and scaled versions of the same magnetic field. An example of an elliptical rotating magnetic
field along with some boundaries generated for this “previous value algorithm” is shown in Figure 10. The
“previous value” algorithm is especially useful in cases where the magnetic field is not exactly an ellipse and
thus cannot be accurately monitored with the “expected ellipse” algorithm. The use of two detection algorithms
in conjunction with each other can reduce incorrect fault detections. For example, if the system is fairly
imbalanced, faults will be more likely to be incorrectly detected with the “previous value” algorithm, while the
“expected ellipse” algorithm will not have as much of a problem with this. Similarly, if harmonics are seen by
the sensors and are not properly filtered, the “expected ellipse” algorithm will be much more likely to detect a
fault incorrectly while the “previous value” algorithm will not. A magnetic field with several unfiltered
arbitrarily phase-shifted harmonics is presented below, while Figure 11 shows the same magnetic field with
boundaries based on the “expected ellipse” algorithm. It is clear that the “expected ellipse” algorithm will
incorrectly detect faults in this situation. Ideally, all of the harmonics would be filtered prior to analysis, but
complete filtering would have negative impacts on the system in other ways including making faults harder to
detect. As a result, it cannot be assumed that the magnetic field will be a perfect ellipse. Thus, the fault detection
results of the “expected ellipse” algorithm are combined with the results of the “previous value” algorithm in
order to better determine if a fault has truly occurred. This example reinforces the idea that performing an
analysis of the magnetic field using multiple algorithms in conjunction with one another can reduce the number
of incorrect fault detections if the results from each algorithm are compared against those from the other
algorithms.
Conclusion
This paper described the theory and methods of traveling wave fault detection and location using magnetic field
sensors. The concept of the magnetic field for a general and three phase system was explored. This was followed
by a presentation of the magnetic fields for a variety of conductor configurations and sensor locations. The
algorithms used in the magnetic field-based fault detection are then described. The magnetic field sensors are
found to be effective in detecting faults conceptually. Additionally, the algorithms theoretically can provide
accurate fault detection for common types of faults. All of these prove that the magnetic field sensor to be a
viable tool for power transmission line fault detection. Eventually a prototype of the magnetic field-based fault
detector could be built and field tested. This would require more development of the sensors as well as
harmonic-filtering circuitry. a MATLAB code is used to plot the ellipses of magnetic field of a transmission line.
References
A. Elhaffar, M. Lehtonen. (2004). Traveling Waves Based Earth Fault Location in 400kV Transmission Network
Using Single End Measurement, in Large Engineering Systems Conference on Power Engineering, pp. 53-56.
D. A. Tziouvaras, J. B. Roberts, G. Benmouyal. (2001). New Multi-Ended Fault Location Design for Two- or
Three-Terminal Lines,” in Developments in Power System Protection (IEE), Conference Publication No. 479, ,
pp.395-398.
H. Khorashadi-Zadeh, M. Sanaye-Pasand. (2006). Correction of saturated current transformers secondary current
using ANNs, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 21, 1, pp. 73–79.
IEEE Power Engineering Society (PES). (2004). IEEE Guide for Determining. Fault Location on AC
Transmission and Distribution Lines, IEEE Std. C37.114TM.
IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee (PSRC). (1999). IEEE Guide for Protective Relay Applications to
Transmission Lines, IEEE Std. C37.113-, pp. 31.
J. Jiang, Y. Lin, J. Yang, T. Too, C. Liu. (2000). An Adaptive PMU Based Fault Detection/Location Technique for
Transmission Lines—Part II: PMU Implementation and Performance Evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1136-1146.
K. Firouzjah, A. Sheikholeslami. (2009). A current independent method based on synchronized voltage
measurement for fault location on transmission lines, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 17,
pp.692–707.
K. Zimmerman, D. Costello. (2005). Impedance-Based Fault Location Experience, 58th Annual Conference for
Protective Relay Engineers,2005, pp. 211-226.
Lian B. and Salama M.M.A. (1994). An overview of digital fault location algorithms for power transmission
lines using transient waveforms.—Electric Power Syst. Res., Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 17–25.
M. Aurangzeb, P. A. Crossley, P. Gale. (2000). Fault Location on a Transmission Line Using High Frequency

68 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852

www.cccsenet.org/mas Modeern Applied Scieence Vo 4, No. 8; Auggust 2010
Vol.

Travellling Waves Measured at a Single

S Line Ennd,” in Power Engineering Society
S Winterr Meeting, Vol. 4, , pp.
2437-22442.
M. Snneddon, P. Gaale. (1997). FaultF Locationn on Transmiission Lines, IEEE Colloqquium on Opeerational
Monitooring of Distribbution and Traansmission Sysstems, Januaryy, pp. 2/1-2/3.
M. Vinntan. (2004). F
Fault Current Distribution
D Coomputation onn Overhead Transmission Lines, in Proceeedings of
the Fift
fth Internationaal World Energ
gy System Conf
nference, vol. II,
I Oradea, Rom
mania, pp. 2733-279.
Tahar bouthiba.
b (20004). fault locattion in EHV ttransmission liines using artiificial neural networks,
n Int. J. Appl.
Math. Comput.
C Sci., 14, 1, pp .69–7
78.

ontal conductoor configuration and plots of its magnetic field

Fiigure 1. Horizo fi
(a)) – Conductor geometry; (b) – Magnetic fieeld for balanceed currents, p=
=2m;
netic field for a line to grounnd fault on phaase a, p=2m;
(c) – Magn
(d) – Magn
netic field for lline to line faullt on phases a and b, p=2m

Publishhed by Canadiann Center of Scien

nce and Educatiion 69
www.ccsenet.orrg/mas Modern Appplied Science Vol. 4, Noo. 8; August 20110

Figure 2. A delta condductor configuuration and ploots of its magnetic field

(a) – Condductor geomettry; (b) – Magnnetic field for balanced
b curreents, p=2m;
(c) – Magnetic fieeld for a line too ground fault on phase a, p==2m;
(d) – Magnetic fiield for line to line fault on phases
p a and b, p=2

Figgure 3. Delta conductor confi

figuration and m
magnetic fieldd with sensors under
u center phase
(a) – Connductor geomeetry; (b) – Maggnetic field forr balanced currrents, p=2m

70 ISS
SSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-18552
www.cccsenet.org/mas Modeern Applied Scieence Vo 4, No. 8; Auggust 2010
Vol.

Figuure 4. Delta co
onductor configguration and magnetic
m field with
w sensors shhifted
(a)) – Conductor geometry; (b) – Magnetic fiield for balanceed currents, p=
=2m

Figure 55. Delta condu

uctor configuraation and magnnetic field with
h sensors shifteed farther
(a)– Conductor geometry; (b) – Magneticc field for balaanced currents, p=2m

Publishhed by Canadiann Center of Scien

nce and Educatiion 71
www.ccsenet.orrg/mas Modern Appplied Science Vol. 4, Noo. 8; August 20110

Figuure 6. Delta coonductor configuration and m

magnetic field with sensors shifted
s significcantly
(a) – Connductor geomettry; (b) – Magnnetic field for balanced curreents, p=2m

Figurre 7. distancess and times useed in determiniing the fault lo

ocation

72 ISS
SSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-18552
www.cccsenet.org/mas Modeern Applied Scieence Vo 4, No. 8; Auggust 2010
Vol.

Figure 8. example off a deviation frrom the originaal ellipse

Figure 9. Ellliptical rotatin

ng magnetic fieeld with bounddaries for the “expected
“ ellipse” algorithm

Publishhed by Canadiann Center of Scien

nce and Educatiion 73
www.ccsenet.orrg/mas Modern Appplied Science Vol. 4, Noo. 8; August 20110

Figurre 10. Ellipticaal rotating mag

gnetic field witth boundaries for the “previo
ous value” algoorithm

Figure 11. Maagnetic field with

w harmonicss, monitored byy “previous vaalue” algorithm
m

74 ISS
SSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-18552